What should happen to the millions of dollars publishers rake in from authors whose work is later retracted?
Guillaume Cabanac, one of the developers of the Problematic Paper Screener, has repeatedly suggested publishers donate such revenue to charity.
And now one is doing just that.
Recently, IOP Publishing took Cabanac up on his suggestion, and has begun sending the article processing fees (APCs) from articles it retracts to Research4Life, an organization that “provides institutions in low-and middle-income countries with online access to academic and professional peer-reviewed content,” according to its website.
In posts on twitter.com and PubPeer, and in a recent interview in The Times, Cabanac has called for publishers who charge APCs to authors of open-access papers to donate those fees when they issue retractions.
Cabanac told us:
APCs of retracted papers should not be kept by publishers (this would hinder incentives to correct the record).
They should not be returned to authors (especially when they are papermill customers).
Transferring APCs to a charity (or the CSI [Center for Scientific Integrity, Retraction Watch’s parent nonprofit]) will support a good cause (or integrity endeavours).
Kim Eggleton, head of peer review and research integrity at IOP Publishing, told us:
We exist to disseminate trusted research and safeguard the scientific record, so we can’t justify financially benefiting from retracted papers. This donation, along with our promise to channel further APC revenues from retracted papers to Research4Life, feels like the right thing to do. It also means that something positive can come out of the current research integrity issues we are facing as an industry. We chose Research4Life because their work to boost access to knowledge and raise standards of research skills globally is so important and aligned with our values as a community focussed, society publisher.
IOP Publishing donated 100% of the money it received from retracted papers this year, and plans to do the same each year, a spokesperson said. The publisher declined to give a specific amount for the donation.
As “a way to support research integrity even further,” Cabanac said, “sleuths should unite in a kind of nonprofit association funded by the APCs of retracted papers!”
He continued:
This money would encourage sleuthing and support the people who dedicate time and efforts to correct the literature — pro bono!
… and sometime taking risks of harassment, intimidation…
A kind of white hat hacking… but for sleuthing.
This association would welcome any donation from the publishing industry.
Cabanac does free consulting for the publishing industry, he said, and has heard from many publishers and integrity officers who use the tools he’s developed as a sleuth. He said:
I’m realising it’s unfair that these companies (oligopolies) don’t support some dedicated, brilliant fellow sleuths who are struggling to make ends meet.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Brilliant. Make sleuthing a grift, attracting corrupt individuals.
Why donating the fee of retracted papers? The publisher didn’t do anything wrong to be punished.
The publisher has every right to keep those fees to itself. No need for donating them. It is legit. In the case of retractions due to any fraud committed by the authors, the publisher should even charge the authors even more than regular fees.
The publisher should even sue those fraudulent authors on the grounds of defaming them (the publisher) and their journals. So, the publisher should NOT donate any income from retracted papers. It should take even more for damages.
So IOP Publishing is donating the “article processing fees” (APCs) to charity from articles that have been retracted but they are keeping the more lucrative access fee(s) (ie. the paywall fee to read the article for a limited period of time) that they might have charged people who wanted to view these now retracted journal articles. How very nice of them.
IOP can invest this money for better monitoring the submissions, so they wont need to retract later. Quality check is essential.